9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTAT BANGALORE] - thus, in respect of export of services, the relevant date for deciding the time limit for claiming refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules is the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received in cases where the refund claims are filed on quarterly basis. It is not in dispute that the refund claims were filed on quarterly basis. We, therefore, direct that the adjudicating authority while examining the matter pursuant to order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), will take the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received as the relevant date for determining the time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 52998 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50025/2019 - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - MR. JUSTICE DILI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- for the period from April, 2013 to December, 2014 was also found to be barred by time by the original authority. It is against these two orders dated 26 February, 2016 and 29 February, 2016 that an appeal was filed by the Appellant before the Commissioner. The original authority while rejecting the claim of the Appellant on the ground of limitation, observed that the relevant date for refund claim for any quarter is the first day of the relevant quarter. The first appellate authority observed that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation is the date of invoice and it is for this reason that the first appellate authority remanded the matter to the original authority. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellants has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch reads as under : 13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 01/03/2016. Essentially after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitution Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
